Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ocaasi: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:23, 8 November 2010 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsm →Ignore all rules← Previous edit Revision as of 02:29, 8 November 2010 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Ignore all rules: I think you will like this template.Next edit →
Line 192: Line 192:
== Ignore all rules == == Ignore all rules ==


<div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:{{{1|150}}}px; width:{{{1|150}}}px;"><div style="position: relative; width: {{{1|150}}}px; height: {{{1|150}}}px; overflow: lolz"><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3">]</div><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">]</div></div></div> <nowiki><div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:{{{1|150}}}px; width:{{{1|150}}}px;"><div style="position: relative; width: {{{1|150}}}px; height: {{{1|150}}}px; overflow: lolz"><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3">]</div><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">]</div></div></div></nowiki>


I thought you may like the Ignore all rules template since you like simpler or no instruction creep for policy. ] (]) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I thought you may like the Ignore all rules template since you like simpler or no instruction creep for policy. ] (]) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:29, 8 November 2010

Click here to leave me a message...

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41


This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


VANDALISM THREAT
Guarded __ __ __ __ __


Links

Template:MultiCol Little Kids


| class="col-break " | Big Kids


| class="col-break " | Bigger Kids

Template:EndMultiCol

Special:SpecialPages Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ Misplaced Pages:Requests Misplaced Pages:Replies_to_common_objections Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources Misplaced Pages:Alphabet_soup Misplaced Pages:Deletion_process Misplaced Pages:RS Misplaced Pages:Avoiding_common_mistakes Special:Statistics Help:Contents/Site_map Misplaced Pages:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index Misplaced Pages:Tips Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#Requested_move_Requested_move Misplaced Pages:RFC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages RFC FEED signpost/resources/discussion/watchlist Misplaced Pages:BRIEF


--clthng, dmbg, ar, rbns, mcd, chna, pndg chngs, npov, psdscnc, stki, rcp,

Open Questions

  • Does ASF/MEDRS apply to a systematic review if only one exists?
  • Are article naming conventions using PRIMARY topic guidelines based on WP page views or on common popularity?

Great Diffs

STiki Feedback

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

change to republican def

ok I have legit reasons for said change....gay black republican....possible definition one who is suddenly gay, not accepted by other gays so becomes republican for attention....republican party needs minority vote till after elections hence pic or web ugly dance......of said gay black republican also note said gay black republican is real person does really exist known said person since elementary school openly bashes gays and black please refer to race and sexual orientationjust thought the world should know how why and yes it is possible.....it has to be in wiki the world must know not racist, or judging but did you know.....one who knows all......i didn't unsigned comment added by Jewskin (talk links removed

Russell Brand Edits

Ok dude fair enough, I did try to find a more credible source than the sun. But couldn't find anything, and the credible sources were just quoting what the sun had said. Thank you for giving me a reason, don't like it when other people just edit and delete text without saying why.

TUSC token 429f023399011fed35160b775830d68e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Great Patriotic War

Thanks for posting your well-worded message to user:121.220.77.220. He has stopped making wholesale changes. You are right of course, the edits are not vandalism per se, but it was late and I couldn't think of where to ask for advice. I have now posted a message at WP:MILHIST to ask for input. Regards, --Diannaa 16:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

answered on IP page

User_talk:69.142.154.10#evidence-based... you really ought to combine these accounts - it's confusing. --Ludwigs2 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes to NPOV FAQ were not minor copy edits

The controversial changes were not copy editing. The major rewrite weakened the meaning of the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your mass edits were not copy editing and you substantially weakened FAQ for no good reason. You did not leave a comment on the FAQ talk page explaining you want to weaken FAQ because you think it was too strongly worded. Why do you think your edits were just copy edits. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with NPOV rewrite

Moved from Talk:Pseudoscience. "QG: I didn't ask for a generic assessment of NPOV issues, I asked you about this particular case. --Ludwigs2 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)"

This comment shows what happens when there is no ASF policy. We do need guidance or else editors will not know what to do. QuackGuru (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on this I'm working up. Maybe you'll be able to give feedback. I want to lay out that we do have some guidance here, just not explicit guidance, and not the guidance you would prefer. So there are two questions I see: one, how much guidance is needed; and two, which guidance.
I think laying out a really comprehensive policy on attribution, that can take into account both your concerns about Fringe issues and Pseudoscience as well as other editors concerns about overly emphasizing statements as facts will take some careful writing. In the meantime, I haven't seen a mob of people blowing up Wiki with damaging attributions.
In particular, at the Pseudoscience article, I find the discussion to be insightful. You (and I) initially preferred no attribution. Kenosis acted conservatively by adding it. Ludwigs reasoned that we would need more support to establish pseudoscience as a standard aspect of scientific literacy. Now we have to go find more sources. There's something really beneficial about that process.
While unnecessary attribution can lead to dilution, somewhat stronger requirements for stating things as general facts should improve the sourcing and temper claims which might otherwise be overbroad. In short, in the absence of ASF there is a chance to craft better guidance on policy, and there is, as always, the reasoning of editors. Ocaasi (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
In reality, in the termination of ASF, it is likely that new editors will make common mistakes and unintentionally add in-text attribution and experiences editors will eventually forget there ever was ASF. According to ASF, when there is no serious dispute the text can be asserted but Ludwigs2 argument is that there must be consensus among sources or for non-controversial text anyone who personally disagrees with the source can add in-text attribution. I can't see how it will help improve Misplaced Pages pages when editors are all over the place with different arguments rather than relying on policy. How could it be neutral to suggest there is a serious disagreemnt where there is none. For a BLP article, implying there is a serious dispute where there is none is a BLP violation. Now, NPOV conflicts with BLP. This is a serious matter. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
QG, I understand your concern, but new editors didn't know what ASF was anyway, and experienced editors are concerned about creating a quality encyclopedia regardless of policy. Ludwigs did set a higher bar for assertion, and somewhere in between that bar and yours, is where I think proper policy lies. The idea that editors will be all over the place in a bad way assumes that rather than making intelligent and fitting choices narrowly tailored to each article, that they will just go crazy. Strict policies are only useful because they limit debate and have consistency; they don't always produce ideal results, though.
You asked the question, 'How could it be neutral to suggest there is a serious disagreement when there is none', but that question relies on a strong assumption: that attribution always implies a serious dispute. Why can't it just mean 'lack of fact or broad-consensus status'. Attribution is also appropriate for obvious cases of opinion, but also statements that are uncontested but don't seem to be universally true. You want to put the burden of proof on the attributers; at Pseudoscience, Ludwigs suggested it should be on the asserters. Either is reasonable, but a sound policy would put the burden on a more nuanced breakdown of whatever will lead to the best outcome. (While attribution under ASF implied a contested item, there was nothing inherently correct about putting the burden of justifying attribution entirely on competing sources. It strikes me as equally overbroad to craft a policy that says: always use attribution unless you can demonstrate consensus. Neither extreme is necessary.)
As for the BLP issues, I don't think I follow your example. If we say, "According to The Newspaper, Actress Jane is pregnant" instead of "Actress Jane is Pregnant", how is that more risky?
Last, and not most importantly, if you have these very severe worries, why do you think that other experienced editors don't share them? Ocaasi (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Mass changes to NPOV without consensus
;User:Kotniski
Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus. Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Ludwigs2
Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy. Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes. Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 has not explained the mass changes and did not gain consensus.
refactored here by Ocassi.
Other editors do share my concern. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV again against consensus. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Misplaced Pages articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF and now editors are arguing without any direction at Talk:Pseudoscience with the attribution in the text that was against NPOV less than a week ago. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, though I still think it's worth trying to just write policy that can handle more situations well.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to show me below. I see that Kotniski, Ludwigs, and others wanted to rewrite NPOV to be less explicit and more simple. I see that you, and some others who are particularly concerned with Pseudoscience/Fringe articles running amok wanted to keep ASF. My preference is for the policy to be both simpler and better tailored to the attribution issues. I don't think it's there yet, but this rewrite seems to me to be a cleaner draft to go from.
I guess my question, then, is, the NPOV rewrite has been up for several days now, and you seem to be the primary opponent... if there's a lot of opposition to it, where is it? I imagine an RfC will have to approve the rewrite sooner or later (and Ludgwigs suggested as much), but in the meantime, are people really just not paying attention? Ocaasi (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The rewrite is less explicit and vague. You think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow a cleaner version. Now Ludwigs2 is arguing that editors should show consensus among reliables sources or otherwise attribution in the text is appropriate rather than the previous meaning of ASF was that the statement can be asserted without attribution in the text when there is no serious dispute. Policy is not cleaner. In a nutshell, the mass rewrite without consensus is incoherent and makes little sense. The rewrite was more than less simple. It changed the meaninng of ASF and now editors are changing there argument such as at Talk:Pseudoscience with comments that are all over the place. QuackGuru (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Because the rewrite was so vague it changed the meaning of core policy. QuackGuru (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Chiropractic

Hi there,

Thank you for the letter and the explanation of why my editing was undone. I am very disappointed that Misplaced Pages has published what is currently written about Chiropractic. To be honest I am wondering how I go about challenging what is currently on there? Do I have to submit a different version or can I challenge what is there now without submitting a new article? I would love to take half a day and put together a well put together article with references. At this time I am taking 28 credit hours so my time is very pressed. Please let me know what I can do to get the false information removed from this article. I find it hard to believe that Misplaced Pages was very strict on the accuracy of the data that is currently published. I will do my best to follow what ever instructions that you provide. Just to be sure I am acting in the best interest of my school and profession I am going to approach our legal department tomorrow and let them know about this obviously malicious attempt to slander chiropractic.

My schools website is: www.logan.edu

If you would, please take a look at this website for yourself to get an idea of what Chiropractic is like in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frolicin (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

sidebar

Hi. Re Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#RFC: Change prominence of site disclaimer link in default skin, wp:about is already in the sidebar. I suggest a quick fix to your 2 comments ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

fixed--Ocaasi (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

STiki / Research pointer

Hello, Ocaasi. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chiropractic ....rock_climber02

Thanks for your feedback on the chiropractic section. I will more closely follow the guidelines you mentioned in the future. I am just now learning how this all works and want to work within the current system. thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock climber02 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

chiropractic

Thanks again for your patience with my learning curve. I will take some time to more thorougly read some of the talk points. There are multiple studies that do not have the extreme anti chiropractic findings that are currently cited on the page. I will attempt to do a better job at displaying this. Thanks again for your constructive criticism and feedback. Rock climber02 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks again for your help and feed-back. I am working on doing just as you described for a much less controversial topic on this subject, that of chiropractic education. The current information is highly inaccurate and this should be easy enough to substantiate. Thanks again and I really appreciate your help in understanding the process.Rock climber02 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bolditis

Re: your revert here, please read MOS:BOLDTITLE#Descriptive titles: If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. (For a tongue-in-cheek but very succinct and accurate summary of the reasoning behind this, see Misplaced Pages:Stop bolding everything.) My edit was 100% correct. Your revert was not, please undo it. Thank you. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

  • The edit at WP:SPOILER was a matter of personal taste, the MOS does not apply to project space pages (i.e., the reasoning for your revert there is not valid, but what the heck). Wrt to an account: been there, done that. Compared to my experiences from my tenure as a registered editor, the frustration I suffer at the hand of trigger-happy Twinkle-abusers is minuscule.

    However, the formatting correction I made at Chiropractic controversy and criticism is pretty much non-negotioably correct. Bolding separate words or word groups is just obviously idiotic. You either see it or you don't. Now have a nice day and I hope you enjoy those idiotically bolded separate word groups. Thanks for being part of the problem, mate. --87.78.31.89 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Template with instructions

Do you want a template with instructions beyond linking to policy in the article or not. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

<div style="position: fixed; right:0; bottom:0; display:block; height:{{{1|150}}}px; width:{{{1|150}}}px;"><div style="position: relative; width: {{{1|150}}}px; height: {{{1|150}}}px; overflow: lolz"><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 300px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 300px; z-index: 3">]</div><div style="position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; z-index: 2">]</div></div></div>

I thought you may like the Ignore all rules template since you like simpler or no instruction creep for policy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)